2008/6/1 Henryk Trappmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> there is an "obvious" convention that by default we mean the positive
>> root.
>
> We have to distinguish between solutions of polynomials and roots.
> Roots are clearly defined mono-valued functions:
> z.nth_root(n)=e^(log(z)/n)
> however this f
> But coercing symbolic constants into RR or CC is not a simple, (or
> even well-defined?) matter. Just think of many-valued nested
> radicals; or if a=sqrt(2), b=sqrt(3), c=sqrt(6), would a*b-c
> simplify/coerce to 0? This is not stratightforward at all.
Is it?
I just would evaluate the expr
> I didn't even know there was a log_b, so I would be *very* happy
> to delete it.
>
> -- William
They are not the same:
sage: log_b(10,2)
3.32192809489
sage: log(10,2)
log(10)/log(2)
but log(10,2).n() is.
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&se
2008/6/1 William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Jason Grout
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Henryk Trappmann wrote:
>>> On May 31, 10:55 pm, Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, there's no homomorphism either way;
RR(R2(2)+R2(3)) != RR(R2(2)
PS e.g. see http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=800204.806298 (found
using Google Scholar): "Algebraic simplification a guide for the
perplexed" 1971, has references back to 1960 at least -- and also
mentioned Axiom.
2008/6/1 John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/6/1 Henryk Trappmann <[EMAIL
> there is an "obvious" convention that by default we mean the positive
> root.
We have to distinguish between solutions of polynomials and roots.
Roots are clearly defined mono-valued functions:
z.nth_root(n)=e^(log(z)/n)
however this function is not continuous in z, as log is not continuous
at
There was a thread on this issue a few months ago, just on the
simplication of algebraic expressions, and I don't want to repeat all
that. Briefly, people tend to think this is easy when they look at
examples which only involve square roots of positive reals, since
there is an "obvious" conventio
That is *very* impressive!
John
2008/6/1 Daniel Bump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>> (hopefully with help from John Voight), and "Lie Algebras/Algebraic
>> Groups" as a new package. For this last one I know that there are
>> several freely available packages (e.g. LIE), but I'm not sure if they
>>
See at the end of:
http://www.math.utexas.edu/pipermail/maxima/2008/011842.html
Jaap
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit th
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Georg S. Weber
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Sage team,
>
> great work so far, keep pushing forward!
> I've got the following question:
>
>
> Does a new SPKG, whose contents are licensed under GPLv3+ ("three
> plus"),
> fulfil your license requirement in or
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Jaap Spies wrote:
> See at the end of:
>
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/pipermail/maxima/2008/011842.html
I don't know what is at stake here from the perspective of Sage,
but so far as I know the current developers of Maxima are not
in a position to change the licen
Hello Sage team,
great work so far, keep pushing forward!
I've got the following question:
Does a new SPKG, whose contents are licensed under GPLv3+ ("three
plus"),
fulfil your license requirement in order to become part of the Sage
core?
In your Wiki (http://www.sagemath.org:9001/spkg/Inclu
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 8:51 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jun 1, 5:30 pm, Robert Dodier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
>>
>> Jaap Spies wrote:
>> > See at the end of:
>>
>> >http://www.math.utexas.edu/pipermail/maxima/2008/011842.html
>>
>
> Hi Ro
On Jun 1, 5:30 pm, Robert Dodier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
>
> Jaap Spies wrote:
> > See at the end of:
>
> >http://www.math.utexas.edu/pipermail/maxima/2008/011842.html
>
Hi Robert,
> I don't know what is at stake here from the perspective of Sage,
> but so f
On Jun 1, 4:57 pm, "Georg S. Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hello Sage team,
Hi Georg,
> great work so far, keep pushing forward!
> I've got the following question:
>
> Does a new SPKG, whose contents are licensed under GPLv3+ ("three
> plus"),
> fulfil your license requirement in order to
On Jun 1, 6:01 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 8:51 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> I really hope Maxima is not GPL V2 only, since:
> (1) that would mean we couldn't distribute it with Sage,
Obviously: IANAL and I don't play one on TV ;)
On Jun 1, 6:08 am, Henryk Trappmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > there is an "obvious" convention that by default we mean the positive
> > root.
>
> We have to distinguish between solutions of polynomials and roots.
> Roots are clearly defined mono-valued functions:
> z.nth_root(n)=e^(log(z)/n)
William Stein wrote:
> In fact looking through the actual source code, it mostly says
> "Copyright William F. Schelter" or "See the GNU General Public
> License for more details. You should have received a copy of
> the GNU General Public License." The top level of the maxima
> distribution con
On Jun 1, 8:11 pm, Robert Dodier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
> > In fact looking through the actual source code, it mostly says
> > "Copyright William F. Schelter" or "See the GNU General Public
> > License for more details. You should have received a copy of
> > the GNU Gen
On 1 Jun., 17:21, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Georg S. Weber
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hello Sage team,
>
> > great work so far, keep pushing forward!
> > I've got the following question:
>
> > Does a new SPKG, whose contents are licensed
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Georg S. Weber
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1 Jun., 17:21, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Georg S. Weber
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello Sage team,
>>
>> > great work so far, keep pushing forward!
>
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Robert Dodier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> William Stein wrote:
>
>> In fact looking through the actual source code, it mostly says
>> "Copyright William F. Schelter" or "See the GNU General Public
>> License for more details. You should have received a copy of
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 12:29 PM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> George,
>
> I'ma lso very interested in what you are planning for extended modular
> symbols in Sage. I'll be at the Bristol workshop too (I am visiting
> Bristol this year). William, will you be there?
Probably not, s
George,
I'ma lso very interested in what you are planning for extended modular
symbols in Sage. I'll be at the Bristol workshop too (I am visiting
Bristol this year). William, will you be there?
John Cremona
2008/6/1 William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Geor
On 1 Jun., 20:34, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Georg S. Weber
>
>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 1 Jun., 17:21, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Georg S. Weber
>
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
> After several years of mathematical absence, since January I begin to
> find some time.
> The first version of SAGE I installed was 2.9.2, and I fell in love
> with it. Though, the
> bits and pieces of code I currently have are plain C, with an
> interface written in Magma.
> (It's about fast co
John,
unfortunately, my time constraints do not allow for attending the
Bristol workshop.
And what I meant to say was "extending" the SAGE modular symbols
module in the breadth and number of algorithms, but I have nothing in
the direction of "extended modular symbols" (as in Williams thesis).
The
It might be worth observing that the Department of Energy was happy to
supply DOE Macsyma to Bill Schelter or to anyone else (except Fidel
Castro) on almost any terms, non-exclusively They gave Bill
permission to redistribute under GPL, because that was what Bill
requested. DOE did not ask for,
On Jun 2, 1:20 am, rjf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> It might be worth observing that the Department of Energy was happy to
> supply DOE Macsyma to Bill Schelter or to anyone else (except Fidel
> Castro)
:)
> on almost any terms, non-exclusively They gave Bill
> permission to redistribute
Hello folks,
I just tested clisp 2.45 on Solaris 10 on x86-64 [*not* a Sparc] and
with "-O0 -g" and gcc 4.3. make as well as make check passes. So it
looks like we will finally be close to having a working clisp out of
the box at least on x86[-64] based Solaris and can get the port
working a litt
30 matches
Mail list logo
